Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 24STCV32899, Date: 2025-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV32899    Hearing Date: April 25, 2025    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. This action is stayed pending the completion of arbitration.

            On 12/13/2024, Plaintiff Rodolfo Lara (Plaintiff) filed suit against Del Amo Hospital and Universal Health Services, Inc. (collectively, Defendants), alleging: (1) violation of Labor Code sections 11-2.5-1105; (2) retaliation; (3) violation of Labor Code section 232.5; (4) violation of Labor Code section 6310-6312; (5) violation of Labor Code section 98.6; (6) wrongful termination; and (7) defamation per se/per quod.

            On 1/31/2025, Defendant Del Amo Hospital (Defendant) moved to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pending the completion of arbitration.

Legal Standard

Where the Court has determined that an agreement to arbitrate a controversy exists, the Court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy …unless it determines that…  grounds exist for rescission of the agreement.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.) Among the grounds which can support rescission are fraud, duress, and unconscionability. (Tiri v. Lucky Chances, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 231, 239.) The Court may also decline to compel arbitration wherein there is possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2 (c).)

Discussion

The party moving to compel arbitration “bears the burden of proving [the] existence [of an arbitration agreement] by a preponderance of the evidence.” (Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413.) The moving party also bears the burden of demonstrating that the claims fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement. (Omar v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 955, 961.)

            Here, Plaintiff was hired as a nurse at Del Amo on 1/11/2002. (Minix Decl., ¶4.) Defendant contends that in November 2013, Del Amo implemented a program to arbitrate disputes via use of an arbitration agreement entitled Alternative Resolution of Conflicts (ARC). (Gibson Decl., ¶¶4-8, Exs. A, B, D). Defendant contends that at the time of the implementation of this program, all Del Amo employees received a copy of the ARC agreement, an Opt-Out Form, and an acknowledgment. (Id.)

            In opposition, Plaintiff notes that the Arbitration Agreement submitted by Defendant is undated and unsigned. (See Gibson Decl., Exh. A.)

            However, Plaintiff admits he signed the ARC Acknowledgement, which itself confirmed he received a copy of both the Agreement and the Opt Out Form. (Plaintiff’s Decl. ¶ 4.) While Plaintiff contends that he does not recall any other document being given to him, the Court agrees with Defendant that this contention is not credible. The ARC Acknowledgement states, “ARC is an agreement to arbitrate [. . .]” and in bolded capitalized letters above the signature line says, “I FURTHER UNDERSTAND THAT IF I DO NOT OPT OUT OF THE ARC PROGRAM WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF THE DATE INDICATED BELOW, I WILL BE BOUND BY THE ARC AGREEMENT.” (Minix Decl. to Motion to Compel (“Minix Decl.”), ¶5, Ex. C.)

            Defendant contends that there is no record of an Opt-Out form in Plaintiff’s personnel file, and thus Plaintiff willingly entered into an agreement to arbitrate all disputes in the workplace after 11/30/2013.

            Plaintiff offers no explanation as to why he would have failed to read this short, unambiguous three-paragraph letter before signing it. Moreover, Plaintiff does not explain why he would not inquire as to the Arbitration Agreement if it was not provided to him. 

            In Rivera v. UHS of Delaware, Inc. (C.D. Cal. June 19, 2015) 2015 WL 13685912, the plaintiff was only given the Acknowledgement Agreement but not the Opt-Out Form or the UHS Arbitration Agreement. The Rivera Court held that under these circumstances, the motion to compel arbitration should be denied. The Court explained, “it is difficult to discern how a party could meaningfully assent to a contract that was not provided to them.” (Id. at p. 8.)

            However, unlike there, the Court finds the contention that Plaintiff was not provided with the Agreement to be lacking credibility. Moreover, there is no indication that the Acknowledgement Agreement there included the same express language related to arbitration.

            Instead, the Court finds the instant case to resemble the facts in Harris v. TAP Worldwide, LLC (2016) 248 Cal. App. 4th 373, 384.

            In Harris, the arbitration agreement was contained within the employee handbook. (Id. at 377-78.) The employee signed a separate, standalone written acknowledgment confirming receipt of the arbitration agreement and the handbook. (Id. at 377-78.) The employee handbook stated “[i]f, [. . .], an applicant fails to execute the Agreement to Arbitrate yet begins employment, that employee will be deemed to have consented to the Agreement to Arbitrate by virtue of receipt of this Handbook.” (Id. at 381.) The Harris plaintiff argued he never signed the arbitration agreement, had no idea there was an arbitration agreement in the handbook, and that the acknowledgment was insufficient to compel arbitration. (Id. at 379.) The court disagreed. (Id. at 384.) It held the employee’s commencement of performance under the employee handbook constituted assent to its terms, including the arbitration agreement. (Id.) Even if the Harris plaintiff had failed to execute the arbitration agreement and claimed to have no knowledge of same, upon commencing employment, he was deemed to have consented to the agreement to arbitrate. (Id. at 384.) The fact that plaintiff later claimed he did know there was an arbitration agreement and not read it “is legally irrelevant.”

Here, while the Agreement in this case was not a condition of employment, it is undisputed that Plaintiff was clearly and unambiguously informed he would be bound by the agreement if he did not submit the Opt Out Form within 30 days. (Minix Decl., ¶5, Ex. C.) Plaintiff expressly acknowledged such in writing. (Id.) It is also undisputed that Plaintiff never submitted an Opt Out. (Pl.’s Decl., ¶ 9; Minix Decl., ¶ 6.) Thus, by continuing to work for Defendant and failing to turn in the Opt Out, Plaintiff assented to the Agreement.

Moreover, even assuming Plaintiff did not receive a copy of the Agreement, it is undisputed he signed a document stating that he did in fact receive it and that he understood he would be bound by its terms. Had Plaintiff truly not received the Agreement and Opt Out Form, he could have refused to sign the ARC Acknowledgement or requested copies of the Agreement and Opt Out Form. He did neither.

Taken together, the Court concludes that Defendant has established by a preponderance of the evidence that an arbitration agreement exists. Accordingly, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to show that the agreement should not be enforced. (Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236. (Pinnacle).)

Plaintiff did not advance any other argument as to the unenforceability of the Agreement. Accordingly, he has not met his burden to show that the Agreement should not be enforced.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is granted.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  April    , 2025

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.